Re: Is Gibson Typecast?
Zerb, thanks for the thought and time, not to mention feeling, that obviously went into this post. I would like to answer a couple of comments.
...without ever opening one´s eyes instead of lips and actually looking at the product.
Actually I've looked at Gibson's product. Picked it up and played it even. It ranges from stunningly beautiful (you did say "opening one's eyes", though you later berated us for playing with our eyes instead of our hands, ears and heart) and expertly crafted to butt-ugly, or in other cases put together so sloppily that I wondered how the instrument was ever allowed to leave the factory.
1. How little most people really know about the way the guitar industry or even large companies in general operate. Especially in a niche industry such as guitar manufacture.
...
...
So obviously the billion dollar budget for R+D that some just assume that everybody has just flat out isn´t there.
Thanks for your extensive analysis of the musical instrument industry. While I don't have a business degree and know far less about the subject, I agree it's common sense that music gear companies don't have a huge budget. However, you conclude by telling us that limited funds are the reason Gibson can't do a better job of R&D. Sounds like you're agreeing with some of us who think some of their guitars are butt-ugly. I scratch my head because I can't fathom how someone at Gibson thought people would consider some of their guitars attractive, and you tell me it's because the company is too poor to hire anyone who knows what a cool guitar looks like.
Or even in this thread, a Les Paul instantly becomes "desecrated" by having a rainbow colored finish that the Poster didn´t like.
Guilty as charged! Now let's consider this "rainbow" finish. Do you think Gibson, though not a huge corporation, is a bigger company than PRS? I think it is. Now PRS recently came out with a rainbow finish guitar. I think it might be an Al DiMeola signature model. It doesn't look bad at all. PRS, on a more limited budget than Gibson, managed to design a rainbow finish guitar, yet managed to avoid making it look garrish or bizarre. The PRS looks neat, professional, and not at all unattractive. It's not my first choice of finish, but I think PRS's rainbow finish is well done.
How is it that small American guitar companies like Robin, Zion, Hamer, EB/MM, PRS and others consistently produce the most visually stunning guitars I've ever seen, presumably with an even smaller R&D budget than Gibson?
Now I realize Zerb, that you made the point that taste in finish is just that - a matter of taste. And I admit, my tastes lean to finishes that look neat, detailed, and professional, be they vividly colored burst finishes over flamed maple or stars and planets and bikini girls on 80's shredder axes. Something that looks like an oil slick is gonna make me wanna hurl. Now I realize that does not make that Les Paul a POS. Maybe its tone is so to die for, I'd even use it in the studio. After all, people listening to my songs on CD are not gonna know or care what my guitar looked like.
... that give luthiers and guitar companies a reason to sit back, laugh their ass off ath today´s average idiot, and say "We´re doing everything exactly the way we should be, stay the course."
If Gibson feels they're doing exactly what they should be, then by all means let them stay the course. But I and everyone else is entitled to our opinions. And on an internet forum, we're entitled not only to have them but to express them. If Gibson laughs at me because I can't appreciate the beauty of custom shop guitars, classic and well loved designs, adorned with chrome engravings of paisley designs and bass going after lures, let them chuckle.
